The War Goes On

Barring an unlikely last minute betrayal the Battle of Brexit has been won, but the wider war against the metropolitan so called liberal elite is far from over. The pernicious opinions of these people have dominated the cultural and political life of our country since the 1960s, and they remain in positions of power, from whence they undermine our way of life.

Before turning to these other issues I must address the fact that there are still irreconcilable Remainers, as I am somewhat concerned for their psychological well being. They are so deep in denial that they are a shrinking minority that they are incapable of accepting that the British people wish to leave the EU. They still persist in claiming, against all evidence to the contrary, that they did not lose the argument, and are similar to those few eccentrics who form the Flat Earth Society, or Japanese soldiers found in the jungle years after 1945, fighting a cause which is irretrievably lost, although they can do far more damage than the latter by trying to sabotage our future as an independent nation.

The reality is that, within the UK, the last two European elections were won by parties wishing to leave. David Cameron won a general election in 2015 on the basis of offering a referendum, that referendum then delivered a significant majority in favour of leaving, both main parties promised to honour that result in 2017, thus gaining votes, and the electorate has now voted massively to confirm that they wish to see Brexit implemented. How many more times must that message be delivered before apologists for rule from Brussels realise that they have comprehensively lost the argument. The Leave campaign won because the the people realised that membership of the EU was contrary to their interests, and not because of ridiculous claims regarding fraud, Russia or overspending. For their own sake the Remainers should swallow their pride, and put an end to their absurd posturing as democrats, when in fact they are seeking to ignore the will of the people. However it seems unlikely that they will, given that, in their comments regarding Brexit, those vying for the Labour leadership seem determined to prove that, like the Bourbons, they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.

The EU is similar in intent, although not in method, to all the previous attempts to create a single European state, from Napoleon's empire, through the fascist's New Order, and even, on a lesser scale, the 19th Latin Monetary Union, and, as always, it will fail.

The ideal model for Europe is a continent of democratic nations, friendly, but not politically fused, yet still we see deranged attempts to force the disparate states into one unit, which would inevitably lead to internal conflict, and eventual disintegration. This fate is now looming for the EU, as the single currency falls apart, and the interests of the Mediterranean nations prove to be incompatible with those of Germany, the maritime powers bordering the Atlantic differ from the landlocked East, and the cultural and political nature of such a diversity of countries cannot be reconciled. Kipling, writing in 1897 of the eventual end of the British Empire, summed up the fate of all such vainglorious entities, which seem so permanent, then disappear into Trotsky's dustbin of history "Lo, all our pomp of yesterday, Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!". A fitting epitaph for the EU.

Although a few of these fanatics still believe that they can derail a true Brexit, many have now switched to one of their other obsessions, namely climate change. The Greens would rather we all sat in unheated and unlit homes, while China and India continue to merrily open new coal fired power stations every week, than admit that their demands are unrealistic. They indulge in group think, and worship at the feet of a silly little girl, while ignoring those sensible adults who point out that anthropological global warming is not a proven fact, and seek to make reasonable changes, in a practical time frame, rather than shouting hysterically about climate emergencies. When I was at my grammar school in the 1950s we were taught that we are in fact still within an Ice Age, and the period of little glaciation, which has now lasted about 10,000 years, is just an inter glacial, which is already longer than previous ones, and I can remember many alarmist reports in the media forty years ago, claiming that the glaciers could begin to march again at any time.

That pupils are taking part in marches to 'raise awareness of climate change' is absurd, as only those who have been living at the bottom of mine for the past few years will not have been nagged narrow by environmental fanatics on the subject. I wonder how many of these children realise that the only Green MP has stated that people should give up cars, and holidays by air, while other Greens insist that all energy consumption must be radically reduced. Once the marchers realise that they must walk, or cycle to school, forgo foreign holidays, not practically reachable except by air, and give up their beloved mobile phones and computers I doubt that they will be so keen. It is untrue to claim that the scientific case for anthropological causes of global warming is undisputed.

I don't want to bore readers with endless scientific details, but, in addition to Milankovitch cycles, which I have mentioned before, Dansgaard–Oeschger events show that greenhouse gases may be irrelevant. These events are rapid climate fluctuations that occurred 25 times during the last glacial period. In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet warmed by around 8 °C over 40 years, in three steps of five years, where a 5 °C change over 30–40 years is more common. No factories pumping out carbon dioxide existed then. There is little point in the environmentalists insisting that everyone wears a hair shirt if the theory they are advocating is false.

Of course this does not suit the Green fanatics, who prefer to applaud know nothing 16 year old Scandinavians. These people are authoritarian, verging on fascists, who will brook no opposition to their theories, or their insane demands that we abandon the sources of energy which keep our economies functioning. To turn our backs on all viable means of producing energy, such as nuclear power, is frankly insane. A recent trend in elections has been for the Green party to increase its support, even though I have met many voters, supporting Leave, and angry with the main parties, who do not appreciate that the party is yet another wanting rule by Brussels. As such they are just another faction of the so called liberal left, who actually treat democracy with contempt.

The metropolitan elitists also advance the claims of those who seek to impose the desires of vanishingly small minorities upon the vast majority of the population, corrupting the whole idea of free speech in their efforts to close down debate. In this they are ably assisted by the bias displayed on the BBC, and other media outlets, plus ignorant luvvies who do not live in the real world, but seek to impose their personal opinions on the rest of us. Marxist activists in the education system are brainwashing youngsters into believing that their twisted view of the world is correct, while Left liberal influence on penal policy has led to carnage on the streets of London, as criminals are appeased, rather than punished, and the police pursue thought crime as a priority.

This cultural war will be hard to win, but it must be fought if common sense is to be restored to the affairs of our nation. Failure could yet see these people succeeding in forcing an unwilling nation back to the EU, just as it is falling apart.

Finally it is worth quoting a statement concerning British membership of the EU from one of the giants of yesteryear. There has recently been an attempt in the letters column of the Daily Telegraph to rehabilitate the reputation of Neville Chamberlain, but, in view of the ongoing situation in the Middle East, a far better candidate would be Sir Anthony Eden, who was unfairly traduced over the Suez crisis, when his attempts to prevent the rise of anti Western Arab nationalism were frustrated by Macmillan's duplicity, and the decision by Eisenhower to oppose Britain and France.

Eisenhower learned from his mistakes. The Americans later reversed their attitude to the Middle East, as in 1958, rather than appease Egypt, Eisenhower deployed American Marines to Lebanon to shore up President Camille Chamoun, who was under siege by Nasser's local allies. "In Lebanon,” Eisenhower wrote in his memoirs, “the question was whether it would be better to incur the deep resentment of nearly all of the Arab world (and some of the rest of the Free World) and in doing so risk general war with the Soviet Union or to do something worse—which was to do nothing.“ That is almost verbatim what the British said to justify their own war against Nasser when Eisenhower slapped them with crippling sanctions. Reality forced the United States into a total about-face. Perhaps the decades long history of conflict in the region would have been prevented if Eden had been supported.

In January 1952, in a speech at Columbia University, Eden said "If you drive a nation to adopt procedures which run counter to its instincts, you may weaken and destroy the motive force of its action… You will realise that I am speaking of the frequent suggestion that the United Kingdom should join a federation on the continent of Europe. This is something which we know, in our bones, we cannot do”. Of course that idiot Edward Heath, backed by a weaselly Macmillan, did precisely that, a disastrous error which is only now being corrected. Eden, a supporter of Churchill against appeasement, and a member of the war cabinet which saw us through to victory, was, as so often, right.